There's
been a flurry of interest in the idea of "Atheism-Plus" or "A+" --
atheism that incorporates a strong values component. Essentially it's
secular humanism by another name, except that some advocates broaden it
to include a specific, usually left-progressive, ideological agenda that
secular humanism welcomes but does not demand. As such ideas often do,
the A+ debate has spawned a spin-off debate over the meaning of other
terms, including that perennial puzzler "What is Humanism?" At his
"Temple of the Future" blog, James Croft of Harvard's humanist
chaplaincy offers a definition of humanism that in many ways is quite
good
(http://www.templeofthefuture.net/uncategorized/what-humanism-is-and-isnt).
This post is sure to be widely quoted, so I think it's important to
note the one thing Croft got, in my view, spectacularly wrong.